Asenna Steam
kirjaudu sisään
|
kieli
简体中文 (yksinkertaistettu kiina)
繁體中文 (perinteinen kiina)
日本語 (japani)
한국어 (korea)
ไทย (thai)
български (bulgaria)
Čeština (tšekki)
Dansk (tanska)
Deutsch (saksa)
English (englanti)
Español – España (espanja – Espanja)
Español – Latinoamérica (espanja – Lat. Am.)
Ελληνικά (kreikka)
Français (ranska)
Italiano (italia)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesia)
Magyar (unkari)
Nederlands (hollanti)
Norsk (norja)
Polski (puola)
Português (portugali – Portugali)
Português – Brasil (portugali – Brasilia)
Română (romania)
Русский (venäjä)
Svenska (ruotsi)
Türkçe (turkki)
Tiếng Việt (vietnam)
Українська (ukraina)
Ilmoita käännösongelmasta
Keskusteluiden säännöt ja ohjeistukset
0 
Ilmoita tämä viesti
I've found one, only swearing and no critical thinking. This one is forever lost. RIP
No, you have been pushing this narrative that the game’s reviews reflect what the majority thinks about the story, because every time someone has brought up the story in a negative light, you’ve pointed them to the “very positive reviews”, and I will continue repeating this because you continue to cling onto the “strawman” ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ throughout your post because that’s all you have to attack me.
I’ve made my points and tried arguing in good faith with you in the past, but I can’t keep that up when the person I’m speaking to is a liar charlatan who keeps moving the goalposts whenever he’s caught lying or being disingenuous.
You’ve not demonstrated it to be false. And it’s hilarious how you then follow that by saying that my accusations are admissions, which is basically another “no you” pointless response, thanks for proving my point that you can’t argue in good faith.
Uh, the Steam reviews are still not representative of what people think about the story, so you haven’t proven anything or made any points yet. The belief of the majority in this case is that the story and voice acting were bad, so when you bring up the reviews to somehow prove the players liked the story, you’re in fact making a fallacious argument.
No, that is what you’ve implied from the get-go whenever you mention the reviews to counter the criticism against the story, but nice try.
Okay, Flanders, thanks for hyper fixating on the thing that has no relevance other than serving as a comparison, good job.
“Dreadful weakness”, what a drama queen lol. There is a problem with the Steam reviews, where do the reviews show overwhelming support for the direction of the storytelling in BZ? Isn’t that the whole point of your presence here? You are like a Pokemon who always appears to point to the reviews when someone criticizes the story, that’s your thing.
It’s so pathetic how you want me to get banned because you can’t win any arguments, grow a backbone, dude. Also, I’m calling you what you are, it’s not like it’s coming out of nowhere.
Let’s also pretend that the videos have not gathered hundreds of thousands of views and that the reception for these videos are overwhelmingly positive and mirror what the majority of players think about the game.
"We" are not advocating for any change in their formula, we want the game to follow the original formula, which is what their legacy is built on and what most people liked. They are clearly not good at telling stories, BZ proved that. Could they hire better writers for S2? Sure, but this is still a survival horror, exploration, base building game, the core audience for these types of games don't play survival games to see quirky and sassy characters speaking to each other all the time and ranting over nonsense. And no, BZ was not successful on its own, it was successful thanks to its predecessor who built a name for UW and gave the series its popularity, otherwise it wouldn't have gained as much traction as it did, this is basic stuff, it's the reason why you see so many sequels from Hollywood. Also, this isn’t an anti-woke or woke thing, the writing and voice acting were bad in BZ, anyone from any side of the political spectrum can notice this, just like they can with DA: The Veilguard.
But what I do is I look for longer more in depth positive reviews and then contrast these reviews with ones that are negative, so I can hear what both sides think and look for any biases or any general consensus on what are the good aspects and the bad aspects of the game, all while ignoring the meme reviews which don't really bother me most of the time tbh, but I understand it depends on each person.
No that is what you do. I explained, in detail my position. You seem to have gotten it at the end so I'll just skip there.
Most players liked both. The current formula was a voiced protagonist and a voiced NPC. You want them to change back to a mostly silent one. That is a change.
Mostly Positive says no, they told a story that most people either A. liked or B. Didn't mind enough to change their overall impression from positive to negative.
The game is what the developers want it to be, not what you want to label it. As for the rest, citation needed.
This is a claim with no evidence. It's your bias. A result of the echochamber you live in with your you tube review friends.
Mostly Positive.
The people who reviewed the game mostly liked it, again either they enjoyed the plot and acting and dialog, as I did, or they weren't bothered enough by them to vote down.
UW has made two Subnautica games widely successful and critically acclaimed. This game is another and they will do what they do. When we have more information, like the actual Early Access version, it'll be time for critical feedback. However pretending you are a majority is absurd. There is no data which supports your criticism, it's just your feels.
You are welcome to them, but there is no reason for Unknown Worlds to take them seriously.
Ad populum fallacy again. Just because someone liked a game doesn’t mean they liked everything about it. It’s the same as denying DA: The Veilguard’s hair physics are pretty good just because you hated the rest of the game, liking the game just enough to recommend it isn’t mutually inclusive to liking every aspect of the game.
This is a double fallacy, it’s an ad populum fallacy and a false dilemma fallacy, you’re limiting the options to only two possible conclusions to push your fallacious narrative.
That is true if you want your game to fail. You need to understand your target audience and give them something they want, because they are the ones who buy your games. This, and many other reasons, are why we saw so many disastrous and disappointing launches this year, you need to understand your customers and make something that’s appealing to them.
No, evidence shows that sequels for already established franchises do better than standalone games and/or movies from indie studios. Star Wars Episode 7 did so well solely because of this, despite the actual plot of the movie being hot trash and sometimes feeling like a direct copy of A New Hope. Sequels doing well because a successful and better first product was launched is not debatable, it’s general consensus, and it’s why you see so many sequels that nobody asked for coming from the movie industry.
I don’t even know why I bother responding to you at this point, you’re such a disingenuous and ridiculous person, and speak and argue like a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ child all the time, “you tube review friends”, ffs.
Ad populum and false dichotomy again, learn what nuance means and stop letting your deeply rooted biases and ego control what you think and say.
That’s ironic coming from someone who’s constantly calling other people a “minority” when you want to belittle them. Also, there is data that supports my criticism; there’s the entire story and voice acting in Below Zero to support what I’m saying, but you think your unpopular opinion is the mainstream opinion everyone has and you invalidate everyone’s criticism when the story is mentioned, like you are doing right now.
I’m done with your petty manipulation and pathetic lies, you can’t make logical arguments without using some sort of fallacy or moving the goalposts when your inconsistencies are spotted. Find a different thread to spew your bad faith nonsense on.
Below Zero is a game with pros and cons, and weaker in many aspects compared to Subnautica. However, just because it is weaker, does not mean it is bad like you keep attempting to insist. As someone who recently went through the gameplay, the story is pretty decent. Not bad, not great. Middle ground that serves to have you explore areas. The main problem I had was the number of voiced PDAs that were clustered together, leading to me waiting around for one to finish before moving on to the next.
It seems as if the Below Zero superfans want to trap you into endless circular discussions to derail this topic and report it as "derailed/off-topic" to get it shut down.
You made your points clear, I wouldn't reply anymore to people bringing up the same arguments over and over. We need this topic to stay up, because all of the upvotes and replies clearly show that most people like Subnautica 1 just way more than Below Zero.
Which is useful feedback for the devs.
I’m not trying to play it as that. He has persistently tried to use the very positive reviews as a way to prove that most people liked the story specifically, and that is an ad populum fallacy, since he’s entirely missing the nuance here and he’s just using a fallacy to not feel like he’s in a minority. For someone who’s so progressive, it’s weird to despise being a minority this much, but I digress. Sure, most people “recommend” the game, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who recommend it didn’t like the story, it just means that the good outdid the bad for them, which isn’t as good as it sounds sometimes.
Where? Yes, I’ve said the story and voice acting is bad like a thousand times already, but never said the entire game is “inherently bad” or anything similar, you’re literally strawmanning right now.
I thought the story was pretty mediocre and very boring, honestly. I found not only the story, but the characters as well to be very unappealing and shallow, it’s like they were written by the same people who write scripts for p*rnos, and it kinda worked like that too, I wanted the story to be over just to get back to the action, in this case, the survival, exploration, discovery, and base building aspects of the game, which is what carries it, honestly.
Another “no you” response with no substance.
Literally no one is saying this, it's the strawman you keep retreating to. Most players who left a review liked the game, including the story as part of the game. Meaning, as i have said repeatedly either they liked the story or they weren't bothered by it enough to dislike the game.
This is the strawman you keep trying to insist I defend, which at this point is amazingingly dishonest. Especially after I used your own source to show you don't use the Ad Populum fallacy correctly.
This is an accusation with no evidence or argument. If you belive there is a third option list it and I'll add it to the list. Since you didn't offer a third option, there is no reason to accept your claim. It's just more empty noise from you.
Mostly positive, commercial and critical success with both games. There is no substance to your comment here. No reason offered from you why they should cater to you.
Terminator 2 and Aliens disagree. Sequels can receive a boost from the previous material or they can fail. It's complicated. However your theory doesn't hold. The reviews, again, show most people who bought the game and reviewed it liked it. So the game was played, and reviewed positively. Are you claiming those reviews were because people liked the original game? You would need data to support that claim and you have offered none.
Given your apparent inability to be anything other than stubbornly wrong I don't know either, I figure you are one of those folks who things any response counts as a counter argument when you do it.
Knowing the names of fallacies doesn't make you right when you use those names. That's the fallacy fallacy. I proved you don't understand ad populum with your source and you have offered no third option for the other. There can't be one as it's a binary choice, via the law of identity. We have choice A, people liked the story. and Choice Not A, people didn't like the story but were not bothered enough by it to down vote the game.
There is no other option.
Being called a minority is not belittling. It's statement of a demonstrated fact. That you take it personally is an internal problem you have. Not anything I need to mind.
The problem is that you think your opinion is a fact, which shows additional failure to employ critical thinking.
True, but it gets very hard to follow and people lose interest in following the conversation if it gets to the point of multiple pages of circular discussions between You and Stelar Seven.
Dont let them bait you.
They absolutely do though? Just because millions are sold doesn't mean they aren't in a niche market. For example, I didn't know about the Armored Core series at all until the Game Awards with Armored Core 6. The genre Subnautica populates is still niche, so whilst people have heard of it. Not as many have played it.
Subnautica is a game where the story plays a lot into the atmosphere of the game. Whilst neither game has particularly strong story elements, they'd be certainly worse off without them. Due to this, the story does play an important role in how well the game is received. This isn't like Minecraft or Terraria where you're just there. There is reasoning why you're there, plot elements to encourage you to explore more, and an overarching story. To go "the story is bad, the reviews just don't say that because yadda yadda" is going to lengths to reaffirm your own beliefs rather than taking in the actual data.
Apologies, but that's the gist I've been getting of "the story is bad", as in a story driven game. If what drives the game is bad, then that generally implies y'know. That the game is bad.
And I had the opposite experience, with my only gripe being the amount of voiced PDA clusters. I believe my favorite moment though was building AL-ANs body, and then also finding the Mercury II PDA entries. I think Unknown Worlds storybuilding is best done when it involves prior stories of people and how they're handling survival, rather than research outpost stuff. They also did pretty good at making me hate some characters, like that one pasty manager guy.
To automatically write off Below Zero's story as bad overall based upon your own experience is fine and dandy. But to try to insist that's the overall perception is contrary to what the evidence shows.
EDIT: fixed formatting